Barack Obama’s Syria challenge: A war-weary public

President Barack Obama is “gravely” worried about the situation in Syria, the White House says, while Secretary of State John Kerry called the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians a “moral obscenity” that “should shock the conscience of the world.”

What’s not yet clear is whether developments in the Mideast will shock the conscience of the American people enough to win their support for military action.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Kerry calls for accountability

Obama undecided on Syria response

It’s not just that the public appears resistant to intervening in Syria — these days, Americans seem broadly skeptical about the idea of military intervention, period. As the White House weighs its options in Syria, Obama confronts the grim prospect of asking voters to grit their teeth and support yet another military engagement in a far-off Mideast nation, at a moment when the country seems anything but warm to the notion.

The polls have been remarkable in their consistency, from one foreign conflict to the next: Americans don’t want to engage. They are suspicious of overseas entanglements, whether in the form of military action or funding for foreign aid. A big slice of the country — perhaps even a majority — wants the rest of the world to deal with its own problems.

The most dramatic example of voters recoiling from a foreign war is related to Afghanistan: In June, less than 3 in 10 Americans told an ABC/Washington Post poll that the Afghan war had been worth fighting.

But recent surveys on Syria have also found voters notably unenthusiastic about getting involved in the war-torn state. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted last week found just 25 percent of Americans supported intervening after a chemical weapons attack.

In June, about a quarter of respondents in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll favored direct military action or arming Syrian rebels — essentially the same proportion that said the United States should do nothing at all. That same month, a Pew poll recorded just 20 percent support for arming Syrian rebels, and found that 68 percent of Americans believed the American military is “too overcommitted.”

Asked by Pew whether the United States has a “moral obligation” to stop violence where it can, Americans were split at 49 percent on each side.

Julia Clark, vice president of Ipsos Public Affairs, stated the plain conclusion: “The last few years, we’ve seen a real lack of appetite for this kind of intervention anywhere in the world.”

Pew pollster Andy Kohut said all these polls have unfolded against a backdrop of voters drawing back from the idea of military engagement abroad.

“Internationalism is at a low point and people are very wary of American involvement — particularly American military involvement — in that part of the world,” Kohut said. “What we have seen with Syria, we have seen with Libya, and we have seen more generally with respect to the Arab Spring.”

Pollsters caution that the public’s views on Syria would likely fluctuate in the event Obama deploys military force and makes a more assertive case to the country about the need for American involvement.

There already have been some indications that a chemical weapons attack could change the public’s view of Syria. Contrary to the Reuters/Ipsos result, a Pew survey in April found that a 45-percent plurality of Americans would support action in Syria if the regime there used chemical weapons.

Public Opinion Strategies pollster Bill McInturff, the Republican half of the NBC/WSJ polling team, warned: “It is very hard to predict American public opinion until military action begins and the public assesses whether it met its objectives and is successful or not.”

There’s recent evidence, though, that Americans have little patience for anything but clean-cut military victories in apparently clear-cut conflicts.